Examining Real-World Medication Consultations and Drug-Herb Interactions: ChatGPT Performance Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since OpenAI released ChatGPT, with its strong capability in handling natural tasks and its user-friendly interface, it has garnered significant attention. OBJECTIVE: A prospective analysis is required to evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of medication consultation responses generated by ChatGPT. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted by the pharmacy department of a medical center in Taiwan. The test data set comprised retrospective medication consultation questions collected from February 1, 2023, to February 28, 2023, along with common questions about drug-herb interactions. Two distinct sets of questions were tested: real-world medication consultation questions and common questions about interactions between traditional Chinese and Western medicines. We used the conventional double-review mechanism. The appropriateness of each response from ChatGPT was assessed by 2 experienced pharmacists. In the event of a discrepancy between the assessments, a third pharmacist stepped in to make the final decision. RESULTS: Of 293 real-world medication consultation questions, a random selection of 80 was used to evaluate ChatGPT's performance. ChatGPT exhibited a higher appropriateness rate in responding to public medication consultation questions compared to those asked by health care providers in a hospital setting (31/51, 61% vs 20/51, 39%; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that ChatGPT could potentially be used for answering basic medication consultation questions. Our analysis of the erroneous information allowed us to identify potential medical risks associated with certain questions; this problem deserves our close attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".